Benefits Cut...

[aesop081]

Make MP's serve 25 years to get their pensions would be a start!

Military police do have to serve 25 years to get a pension.

That's what you meant, right ? Since member of parliament pensions are not in DND's budget.

 

[dogger1936]

Military police do have to serve 25 years to get a pension.

That's what you meant, right ? Since member of parliament pensions are not in DND's budget.

Take a little from here...little from there... hey it aint like the govt don`t skim of other envelopes when it benefits them!

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Thing is dogger, that's what they appear to be trying to do. Other departments are going through much worse in comparison to DND, and at least DND itself is trying to shield the frontline (operations, equipment and soldiers/sailors/airpersons on said operations) from cuts that are too deep. And I say this as probably the last guy you would expect to see sticking up for the system/CofC.

Someone show me the math on how they will be out of pocket, ie losing money each month, or going into debt, from these cuts. Seriously.

 

[ModlrMike]

Make MP's serve 25 years to get their pensions would be a start!

Military police do have to serve 25 years to get a pension.

That's what you meant, right ? Since member of parliament pensions are not in DND's budget.

I think this has more to do with Treasury Board than Parliament.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Someone show me the math on how they will be out of pocket, ie losing money each month, or going into debt, from these cuts. Seriously.

If you have a service couple, where one is forced to go on IR, I could see this new policy really affecting their budget. 

I think they should have a hard drawn line in the sand.  No IR over a year, period.  Service couples should have rations paid for, as it is not their choice to go IR (if the other spouse can not get posted to the same location).

 

[Towards_the_gap]

If you have a service couple, where one is forced to go on IR, I could see this new policy really affecting their budget. 

I think they should have a hard drawn line in the sand.  No IR over a year, period.  Service couples should have rations paid for, as it is not their choice to go IR (if the other spouse can not get posted to the same location).

I agree, IR should be solely a temporary measure. I bet that would keep costs down immeasurably.

But aren't we always told to plan according to your base salary alone and not to count on benefits/allowances? As they are the first to go at the whim of the TB?

 

[blacktriangle]

If you have a service couple, where one is forced to go on IR, I could see this new policy really affecting their budget. 

I think they should have a hard drawn line in the sand.  No IR over a year, period.  Service couples should have rations paid for, as it is not their choice to go IR (if the other spouse can not get posted to the same location).

That sounds pretty fair to me.

A lot easier to support than commuting assistance for Class B...I can't believe that was even being paid but I have seen a few people claim it.  :

 

[Sub_Guy]

I agree, IR should be solely a temporary measure. I bet that would keep costs down immeasurably.

But aren't we always told to plan according to your base salary alone and not to count on benefits/allowances? As they are the first to go at the whim of the TB?

So are you telling me that service couples should budget for two households, just on the off chance they can't get posted together.

As for allowances being cut on a whim, this irks me especially when talking about PLD, the sole reason for this allowance was to offset living expenses at locations with a higher cost of living.  So if we are not supposed to factor that into the budget then why give it to us?

 

[PuckChaser]

So if we are not supposed to factor that into the budget then why give it to us?

Exactly! You can't tell Pte Bloggins with 3 kids not to rely on his PLD in Edmonton, and just save it. People would be knocking that soldier if he used the money for a XBox instead of food for the month or rent because he's not supposed to count on it and now he's living in a shady part of town. I understand the calculation going a few dollars left or right every year, but to kick everyone in Edmonton down $850 a month is criminal. But using PLD and to a lesser extent LDA/SDA/Aircrew as part of his income is just heresy, that money is for saving, not spending!

 

[Dexen]

Articulate and informative post. Enlighten us.

Where should those 1.9billion in savings come from instead? Please tell me.

He said IR is a personal choice, if he read all of the thread like he said, then he would of read the part where I said I am forced to live on base. So now as of September first I'm obligated to pay $543 of rations. IR for me was never a gravy train it was something necessary for me to be able afford to serve my country. I know people here in Esquimalt that are on pat like myself with kids that may have to release in order to pay their bills now.

*edit* Apparantly I misunderstood the part about the seperation pay.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Where does it say you are losing SE? All they are cutting from IR is the incidentals.

 

[wesleyd]

Thing is dogger, that's what they appear to be trying to do. Other departments are going through much worse in comparison to DND, and at least DND itself is trying to shield the frontline (operations, equipment and soldiers/sailors/airpersons on said operations) from cuts that are too deep. And I say this as probably the last guy you would expect to see sticking up for the system/CofC.

Someone show me the math on how they will be out of pocket, ie losing money each month, or going into debt, from these cuts. Seriously.

You ever been on IR and had kids at home with a wife/husband who couldnt find employment because your husband/wife has to move every couple of years. Then you cant sell your house unless you want to take a 50-75k loss, than you paid for it not market value? So hubby/wifey goes on IR on their next posting not because they want to but because they have no other option other than declare bankruptcy. These are the people who will be going in the whole every month, seriously. This situation is not an uncommon one. Not everyone has taken a ride on the gravy train. Seriously.

 

[wesleyd]

Sorry, but this seems alittle too over-the-top for me.  Its not like ALL $ benefits were cut, right?  Poor soldier with wife, kids and dogs still gets paid, still has $$ avail (personalized benefits) to pay for this.  Sure, it *dips* into the $ left in your bank account for a posting allowance, but isn't that $ part of what a PA is actually for ???

Having pets = personal choice.  Personalized benefits (those deemed non-essential but attributable to relocation, reimbursement of these expenses must not constitute personal gain).

In a case like this, or ones similar, I have to say it *seems* like ppl will be pissed-off because they will have less of a cash-out on their PBs because of their personal choice (having pets).  I don't think portraying that Johny and Susy Q will have to leave their beloved pets behind because Daddy's CFIRP benefits were cut is accurate, and any CF mbr who is a parent and uses that line with their kids... :


:2c:  I am far from an expert but that is how is seems/reads to me.

So aside from the pets having electricity,water, natural gas connected to your house would be personal choices too??

 

[Towards_the_gap]

You ever been on IR and had kids at home with a wife/husband who couldnt find employment because your husband/wife has to move every couple of years. Then you cant sell your house unless you want to take a 50-75k loss, than you paid for it not market value? So hubby/wifey goes on IR on their next posting not because they want to but because they have no other option other than declare bankruptcy. These are the people who will be going in the whole every month, seriously. This situation is not an uncommon one. Not everyone has taken a ride on the gravy train. Seriously.

No, what I am asking for is the actual working out of income vs expenses where someone is losing money because of these changes. If you can show that to me, where soldier X will end up in the red each month, then I will agree with you that these cuts are unfair.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

So aside from the pets having electricity,water, natural gas connected to your house would be personal choices too??

Are you paying out of pocket for them? No. It is still paid for.

 

[Occam]

Are you paying out of pocket for them? No. It is still paid for.

Yes, it's still paid for...out of the Personalized funding envelope.  The envelope which gets its funds from the Movement Grant (the purpose of which is "to offset various losses or expenses incurred but not specifically provided for"), the Posting Allowance (the purpose of which is "intended to provide compensation for the turbulence associated with relocation of CF members of the Regular Force"), and "Incentives and Savings", which is money you've saved the Crown by being keen (or lucky) enough to shorten their HHT, or by not selling their primary residence.

They may call it a "Personalized envelope", but what it really amounts to is "the CF member's money".  Let's look at the components individually.

The Movement Grant is to compensate you for suddenly having drapes that are too long to fit your new windows at destination, or for having a half-freezer full of food that you can't take with you, or the dozens of aerosol cans of various household products that you can't take, or paint/oil/hazardous goods that you can't take with you, or propane tanks.  It's not meant to line your pocket, but it is your money intended to replace all of these things.

The Posting Allowance is intended as compensation for "the turbulence associated with relocation of CF members of the Regular Force".  Personally, I don't think the Posting Allowance is meant to be like the Civilian Dress Assistance Allowance, in that you're being reimbursed for something you periodically have to pay for.  I believe the Posting Allowance is along the lines of Sea Duty Allowance, which compensates you for having to periodically eat the crap sandwich of being stuck on the ship for duty watches every 12 days, amongst all the other hardships that go along with being a sailor.  The Posting Allowance varies by marital status and rank.  Does it cost more to get your cable/telephone/electricity/gas disconnected/connected if you're a Colonel than if you're a Corporal?  Does shipping your St-Bernard dog become cheaper if you're single?

Things like the savings incentive for the HHT put money in your Personalized Envelope because of savings you've made on Core.  Since funds in Personalized that are unused are paid out to you in cash (i.e. "the CF member's money"), there's an incentive to shorten your HHT.  If you start taking a bunch of expenses which used to be in Custom and shove them into Personalized, you're eroding "the CF member's money".

I note that the NJC Relocation Directive still allows pet kennelling/transportation under the Customized funding envelope, as are utility connect/disconnect fees.  Since the NJC Relocation Directive forms part of the collective agreements of the Public Service, I don't expect to see changes to that policy anytime soon.  Did they hit the CF because they were an easy target?

edit: punctuation and clarity

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So aside from the pets having electricity,water, natural gas connected to your house would be personal choices too??

I think you and I can both see I never mentioned that part, right?

However, Disconnet/Connect fees at origin and new place of duty have been moved from Core, and IIRC, there is a $650 movement grant within the Personalized envelope.  According to the new way of things, the $650 will/can be used to cover disconnect/connect fees and other expenses.

I am not saying I agree or disagree, and can't comment on if the $650 Movement grant is enough to cover the things it is supposed to cover.

** Thanks Occam for explaining it in detail.  :goodpost:

I will say that, I think the whole thing is coming into effect TOO quickly.  I think the "new" rules should only apply to any situations that begin after 01 Sep 12.  There should be a 12 month period, IMO, for people who are affected to make adjustments to their current situation.  This would give each mbr's CofC time to make decisions, Career Mgr's time to react/plan, etc.

Make changes as needed, fine but do it in a way that gives mbr's who will be directly adversely affected (some people are legitimately on IR and qualify for IR vice the Chosen version) time to react and make decisions/changes.

 

[Haggis]

A lot easier to support than commuting assistance for Class B...I can't believe that was even being paid but I have seen a few people claim it.  :

If a member accepts a Class B for one year, s/he is not entitled to a cost move.  In many cases, employing units do not offer a cost move for Class B's over a year (despite what it says in the CFIRPP), and restirct opportunities to members in the geographical area of the employing unit.  However, the employing unit  would offer TA if a suitable/qualified candidate could not be found within the geographical region of the employing unit but within commuting distance. The other options were to hire a lesser qualifed candidate or simply no-fill the position.

Plus, we pay Commuting Assistance (CBI 209.28) to Reg F members who reside outside the geographical area of thier units.  How is this so much different from TA?

 

[bridges]

If a member accepts a Class B for one year, s/he is not entitled to a cost move.  In many cases, employing units do not offer a cost move for Class B's over a year (despite what it says in the CFIRPP), and restirct opportunities to members in the geographical area of the employing unit.  However, the employing unit  would offer TA if a suitable/qualified candidate could not be found within the geographical region of the employing unit but within commuting distance. The other options were to hire a lesser qualifed candidate or simply no-fill the position.

Plus, we pay Commuting Assistance (CBI 209.28) to Reg F members who reside outside the geographical area of thier units.  How is this so much different from TA?

Exactly.  I've seen units whose key positions were filled by someone on TA, because the only - not just "most qualified" - applicant lived outside the geographical area.  Chief clerk, for example. 

Between this and the elimination of the pension & 35-day break for former Reg F mbrs, it's getting harder for units to keep certain posns filled.  We have a few mbrs on Class B who are looking for non-uniformed jobs now, so they can keep drawing their Reg F pension instead.  That experience will be lost.  Yes, these benefits are not exactly "core" to CF operations, and maybe they are an appropriate target at this time - but the impact on staffing needs to be acknowledged. 

 

[Occam]

Plus, we pay Commuting Assistance (CBI 209.28) to Reg F members who reside outside the geographical area of thier units.  How is this so much different from TA?

They do?

I've only drawn commuting assistance once, and it was when my (former) spouse and I resided at a station outside the geographical area of Halifax (she was posted to the station).  I got commuting assistance when I was posted to Halifax, in lieu of being eligible for free R&Q should I have chosen to live in shacks.  Commuting assistance (which was low rate km if I recall) was much cheaper than paying for my free R&Q.

Someone posted into a unit who chooses to live outside that unit's geographical area does so at their own cost without the benefit of commuting assistance, do they not?  I thought Commuting assistance was to compensate you for having no choice but to live a distance from a work location which is not serviced by public transportation.